Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Biotech United Kingdom

Technology For Lab-Grown Eggs Or Sperm On Brink of Viability, UK Watchdog Finds (theguardian.com) 97

Posted by BeauHD from the what-to-expect dept.
An anonymous reader quotes a report from The Guardian: Bolstered by Silicon Valley investment, scientists are making such rapid progress that lab-grown human eggs and sperm could be a reality within a decade, a meeting of the Human Fertilization and Embryology Authority board heard last week (PDF). In-vitro gametes (IVGs), eggs or sperm that are created in the lab from genetically reprogrammed skin or stem cells, are viewed as the holy grail of fertility research. The technology promises to remove age barriers to conception and could pave the way for same-sex couples to have biological children together. It also poses unprecedented medical and ethical risks, which the HFEA now believes need to be considered in a proposed overhaul of fertility laws.

Peter Thompson, chief executive of the HFEA, said: "In-vitro gametes have the potential to vastly increase the availability of human sperm and eggs for research and, if proved safe, effective, and publicly acceptable, to provide new fertility treatment options for men with low sperm counts and women with low ovarian reserve." The technology also heralds more radical possibilities including "solo parenting" and "multiplex parenting." Julia Chain, chair of HFEA, said: "It feels like we ought to have Steven Spielberg on this committee," in a brief moment of levity in the discussion of how technology should be regulated. Lab-grown eggs have already been used produce healthy babies in mice -- including ones with two biological fathers. The equivalent feat is yet to be achieved using human cells, but US startups such as Conception and Gameto claim to be closing in on this prize.

The HFEA meeting noted that estimated timeframes ranged from two to three years -- deemed to be optimistic -- to a decade, with several clinicians at the meeting sharing the view that IVGs appeared destined to become "a routine part of clinical practice." The clinical use of IVGs would be prohibited under current law and there would be significant hurdles to proving that IVGs are safe, given that any unintended genetic changes to the cells would be passed down to all future generations. The technology also opens up myriad ethical issues. Thompson said: "Research on IVGs is progressing quickly but it is not yet clear when they might be a viable option in treatment. IVGs raise important questions and that is why the HFEA has recommended that they should be subject to statutory regulation in time, and that biologically dangerous use of IVGs in treatment should never be permitted."

"This is the latest of a range of detailed recommendations on scientific developments that we are looking at to future-proof the HFE Act, but any decisions around UK modernizing fertility law are a matter for parliament."

Technology For Lab-Grown Eggs Or Sperm On Brink of Viability, UK Watchdog Finds More | Reply

Technology For Lab-Grown Eggs Or Sperm On Brink of Viability, UK Watchdog Finds

Comments Filter:

  • Step Two is get over our fear of eugenics and start doing germline correction of deleterious genes, at least the ones that cause debilitating illnesses that are expensive to treat.

    Might help to make it universally available, and then you're going to have to deal with the people who want a kid with blue skin or something. We will need to figure out where and how to draw the lines between what is acceptable to do to a future life and what isn't.

    • Re:That's Step One (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Shaitan ( 22585 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @10:51PM (#65126815)

      You can't ethically get from A to B.

      There are too many ways such edits can [and almost universally do] go wrong and its okay to subject exactly zero humans to the consequences of even one failed experiment to get there. You want to do correction deleterious genes but genetic edits like that don't just cleanly change what you want the way they do in the movies, there are thousands of unintentional changes that come along with them.

      • Re:That's Step One (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Firethorn ( 177587 ) on Wednesday January 29, 2025 @12:03AM (#65126927) Homepage Journal

        Edits going wrong: That's why you do it with sperm and such, you can DNA check the results these days. Plus, CRISPR and its successors are far more accurate than earlier methods.

        Germline correction via DNA editing may technically be eugenics, but I've also heard that Europe having 99.99% of fetuses that test positive for Down's aborted is also eugenics. It's a very mild form of it.

        And "even one failed experiment" is how we get zero new drugs, zero new medical treatments, zero advancement in preventing further human suffering.

        There needs to be ethical reviews to make sure that the odds of success are reasonable, but 0% is the nirvana fallacy, resulting in zero progress. "Good enough" is as good as we'll get.

        So something like testing this on pigs until we get good at it, and the first tries with humans should be on material that isn't going to be implanted anyways, so no baby to worry about.

        Meanwhile, there are genetic conditions out there that cost literally millions a year. Without needing those, with a healthier population, we can all enjoy better lives.

        • CRISPR and its successors are far more accurate than earlier methods.

          Indeed. "Edits universally going wrong" is ignorant fearmongering.

          Europe having 99.99% of fetuses that test positive for Down's aborted

          That's an exaggeration. It's 99% in Iceland, 97% in Denmark, and 90% in the UK, but much lower in Poland, and zero in Malta.

          For comparison, it's about 75% in America.

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by Shaitan ( 22585 )

            There is a rather wide gulf between 'universally going wrong' and 'NEARLY universally going wrong' but from what the bioengineers I know tell me, CRISPR is nowhere near the magical surgical edit tool it is portrayed as in media. It is, in fact, known to make MANY unintended cuts along with the target and by and large other tools are used with regard to human edits. At least outside the reams of fake bio papers coming out of Bejing and Shanghai ;)

            • Oddly, the elephant in the room is that governments have decades of laws (Title IV, Man in the House Rule, ...) to force one of the parents to pay child support to pay for a) the child and b) subsidize the other parent.

              Sperm banks and lab grown sperm won't pay child support, WIC, food stamps and other money transfers to the custodial parent.

              • Re: (Score:1)

                by Shaitan ( 22585 )

                You'd think that after paying $100k+ for these lab services that wouldn't be a factor but people always forget that many people moonshot things that cost that kind of money rather than having it to blow.

                I hear this same argument for pets, paying for the pet is so expensive that people fail at the shelter/toy costs because they are tapped out, but if they cross that hurdle they then often find another 30-40% of that waiting in surprise vet procedures and checks and if they delay that or have to put it off th

          • Europe having 99.99% of fetuses that test positive for Down's aborted

            That's an exaggeration. It's 99% in Iceland, 97% in Denmark, and 90% in the UK, but much lower in Poland, and zero in Malta.

            For comparison, it's about 75% in America.

            Why would any set of potential parents want to have a malformed child if they learn about it early on?

            That just baffles me...

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Shaitan ( 22585 )

          You can check for the change you intended, not those you didn't intend and don't know about. What we look for in DNA actually needs to be quite specific.

          As for CRISPR, it is serious overrated RE humans because of how seriously overrated it's surgical precision with no unintended edits is. At least that is what my bioengineer friends tell me. Here are some random articles/papers that seem related.

          https://www.cuimc.columbia.edu... [columbia.edu]
          https://www.nature.com/article... [nature.com]
          https://responsibletechnology.... [responsibl...nology.org]

          • You can check for the change you intended, not those you didn't intend and don't know about.

            Theoretically, you could try doing a full genome sequencing both of the donor parent and of the post-edit gamete, using long-reads with sufficient coverage, on one of the latest tech that has relatively lower error rate (compared to earlier long-read tech).
            This should give you the opportunity to check all the changes that happen and try to classify which changes could be attributed to mis-editing (vs. normal genetic drift observed in gamete, vs. sequencing error in the tech).

            But would be insanely expensive,

        • "Germline correction via DNA editing may technically be eugenics, but I've also heard that Europe having 99.99% of fetuses that test positive for Down's aborted is also eugenics. It's a very mild form of it."

          Are you suggesting that "mild" eugenics is OK? Please define where it becomes "moderate" eugenics.

          • When you ditch forceful measures, like involuntary sterilization. Ditch old school racist reasonings, where race is the biggest criteria rather than something like 'does not have gene X', like a gene that massively increases the odds of cancer or heart attack.
            That sort of thing.
            We already have eugenic policies, even if unintended, via things like child tax credits, welfare, and such which encourage select economic classes to have more kids.

            Or planned parenthood type organizations, which can help discourage

      • They go wrong today. Doesn't mean they will tomorrow.

        And the process doesn't even have to be perfect - if we can reach a threshold where the likely outcome is a net positive, that's better than nature.

        It's a trolley problem, and the trolley problem is stupid. If you have the capacity to act and choose not to, you are ethically responsible for the outcome. You're done the moment you are aware the lever exists.

      • If the eugenics freaks get their wish, the elites will procreate as normal but the typical population will consist of blonde haired and blue eyed people who will be subservient to authority. This will collapse human civilization because the elites are not as all powerful as they believe despite having full power over all of humanity.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by gweihir ( 88907 )

        Yep. And you cannot get informed consent from the person most affected either. They would have a massive case against their parents and the service provider that did it. This tech really needs to be working reliably before it can be used outside of a lab experiment. And it will need very careful legal limits on what it is allowed to do.

    • You gonna kill off any kids edited in a way that is deemed to be unethical?

      • That's a silly take. It would be the people who requested the edits and the ones who performed them who would be responsible.

    • Many acknowledged "geniuses" might be classified as having a disease (being in the wrong part of the autism spectrum for example). By definition, "normal" means average, so by genetically ensuring everyone is average, you would be eliminating potential progress. The problem in your logic is what is considered "deleterious genes". What about people who start revolutions? US would not exist had it not been for a revolution. Beethoven lost his hearing, something I am certain would be considered deleterious to

      • By your logic, we should genetically engineer as many seriously ill children as possible because one of them might do something remarkable.

        That's pretty evil.

        • And thus, a good example of how such a thing could go horribly wrong.
        • Wow, that is some leap in logic. Let's see if I can continue with your hyperbole - by your extreme logic, we should design a perfect human DNA, then only allow human reproduction by cloning this perfect design. All other humans should be sterilized, or perhaps euthanized, to ensure there is no imperfect humans, because allowing those imperfect humans to exist would be evil, right?
    • Step three: discuss if ADHD is something that needs to be corrected only to be overruled by some president that got up one morning deciding it needs to disappear because it is naughty and controversial.
      Step four...
      It is a slippery slope that the world in it's current state cannot handle.
    • We should be very careful about trying to use something for good when its use has only ever resulted in evil.

    • I feel like congratulating you for going there with FP... Not sure what form of bravery, but something. Then again, on today's Slashdot it's unlikely to go anywhere of interest. But before I stick my foot all the way into my mouth, I should take a look at more of the context. This is just a reaction to your "opening gambit" with the E-word.

      Okay, just a few hints of my thoughts: Genetic counseling and passive eugenics and the Secretary Problem and 1/e... Will I find any of those in the discussion you started

  • Emotional rollercoaster (Score:3)

    by fahrbot-bot ( 874524 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @10:58PM (#65126825)

    Technology For Lab-Grown Eggs ...

    Yay! Lower grocery prices!

    ... Or Sperm On Brink of Viability

    Damn.

  • Oh thank God (Score:5, Funny)

    by rsilvergun ( 571051 ) on Tuesday January 28, 2025 @11:13PM (#65126859)
    if it's one thing we didn't have enough of it's people.

    • We don't have enough young people.

      • Which is where you want to be if you are to cut the population.

        We just need robots to replace them, till we are all gone and make room where I'm sure the'll have the 60's all over again!

        • No you don't. The young drive innovation badly needed for the future. A gerontocracy makes ready for societal collapse.

          • I think given the risk adverse behavior we see of western societies, I think we're already there.
      • We've got plenty. Too many in fact. More and more they can't find jobs because we have automated too much. And we are automating more and more everyday.

        We are either going to stop acting like a nation of 12-year-olds who get all pissy whenever anybody isn't working 60 hours a week or we are going to become one hell of a techno feudal dystopia. They're just isn't enough work to go around so that we can be a society where if you don't work you don't eat anymore. Plenty of food and housing and medicine but

        • You're insane. S. Korea is leading the way with a birth rate below 1, with many developed countries nipping at their heels. Automation is a necessity in these countries.

          • South Korea's got some real cultural problems. Many of their younger women want nothing to do with marriage or kids. The most cited reasons are the hyper-competitive environment of South Korea and the overwhelming burden of doing all the childcare work while still trying to hold onto their jobs. Many moms do get forced out of work and much of this is a cultural thing. The country is still quite conservative. This is the main driving factor behind the birth rate of 1.

            It's a serious problem for South Korea. I

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by ArchieBunker ( 132337 )

        We don't have enough young people.

        Allow me to fix the quote for you.

        We don't have enough young white people.

    • People are not fungible and birth rates are declining dangerously. [cdc.gov]

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Idzy ( 1549809 )
        they are declining in the first world as our empires collapse why would you want to have children in our terrible dystopia? Hell I'm talking about Canada, down south its even worse.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by shanen ( 462549 )

      Only attempt at humor? But my attempt at a joke would probably focus on the oversupply of human aggression or even more narrowly on the male testosterone supplies in various locations...

      Me? I'm sort of in favor of genetic counseling and perhaps even consideration of the 1/e solution of the Secretary Problem. But we need reversible abortions to completely befuddle the fanatics who are already befuddled by the definition of "human being".

  • Then I kept reading...

    Oh boy. And yes you can make one a boy and one a girl real soon now.

    So if you fix a genetic disability, will that child go on to have more children with that same problem that now needs to also be fixed in this way?

    I realize survival of the fittest is no longer a thing for humans (just look around, including me) - but just because we can doesn't mean we should.

    • If they're actually modifying the germ line, then it's a more or less permanent fix until a mutation takes that gene out again.

      It's the genetic fixes where we use a virus to install a working copy of a gene, such as in the lungs to fix some issue, that doesn't affect the germ line, where it can still be inherited.

      Though there are people with diseases like that who are using IVF and DNA testing to make sure that any babies they make don't carry the gene (or at least don't have it active). This is less "sure

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by tragedy ( 27079 )

      So if you fix a genetic disability, will that child go on to have more children with that same problem that now needs to also be fixed in this way?

      In a word, no. That's not how this works. For those who do not remember this stuff from biology class, here's a refresher:

      Human gametes (sperm and eggs) are single cells with haploid DNA (single helix instead of double helix). Basically, the 23 chromosome pairs split apart into 46 individual chromosomes and one chromosome at random from each pair goes into the gamete. When the sperm and egg gametes combine, the chromosomes from each combine and you end up with 23 pairs of chromosomes again, half from each p

    • So if you fix a genetic disability, will that child go on to have more children with that same problem that now needs to also be fixed in this way?

      I was thinking much the same thing. If artificial means are used to aid in pregnancy because of some fertility problem then aren't the parents then giving birth to a child that will grow to have fertility problems? I recall seeing some TV show or YouTube video some time ago where a man was talking about the problems he and his wife were having with fertility. In this he said both of them are the result of fertility treatments to their parents. How these people ended up together wasn't explained as it se

  • Skin, especially, is subject to genetic damage.

    Sperm might be Ok given enough sperm from different sources. The "race" to the egg is a filter for damaged sperm.

    Eggs would be big problem. There is a reason that eggs are created early in a woman's development, before birth even. By It strongly limits the amount of genetic damage that can be accumulated. Unless there is some means of finding and filtering out skin derived eggs with genetic damage, this is going to result is a lot of messed up kids.

    • There's existing genetic tests that look for known genetic defects. Such tests don't look at everything in the DNA because we can't test for what we haven't yet seen. And what we've seen are defects that result in a live birth versus a nonviable zygote, as in the genes were good enough to get to birth but bad enough we consider it a defect after birth. I guess my point is that there's a natural protection against the worst of genetic damage, the pregnancy will spontaneously abort, but we could be creatin

      • And if this is from skin cells then could someone steal another person's DNA to bear their children by staging them "accidentally" scraping their skin?

        The anti-nuclear folks have nothing over arguments like this.

  • Not only is this lab grown meat not economical,
    it really doesn't taste like the real thing,
    and the texture is nowhere close.

  • “The technology promises to remove age barriers to conception and could pave the way for same-sex couples”

    Anything that contributes to the elimination of the oppressive cisgender patriarchy has got to be welcomed /s

    “The Dialectic of Sex [newstatesman.com] (Shulamith Firestone) described a utopian horizon that would free humanity of the sex binary, liberate women from the oppressive work of reproduction, and free all people from the degradations of waged labour. It would bring an end to the nuclear fami

  • IVG is one of those things we hear about same as economically viable nuclear fusion that will be right around the corner. Been hearing it for 30+ years. Same as human cloning (which makes sense since the same level of tech is needed).

  • The technology also heralds more radical possibilities including "solo parenting"

    Does that mean that in future science may enable people to literally fuck themselves? Or, at least, impregnate themselves?

  • great, now robots will be the ones creating art, literature, and having sex.

  • From "Sleeper":

    Luna Schlosser: Do you want to perform sex with me?
    Miles Monroe: Perform sex? Uh, uh, I don't think I'm up to a performance, but I'll rehearse with you, if you like.
    Luna Schlosser: Okay. I just thought you might want to; they have a machine here.
    Miles Monroe: Machine? I'm not getting into that thing. I, I'm strictly a hand operator; you know, I, I... I don't like anything with moving parts that are not my own.
    Luna Schlosser: It's hard to believe that you haven't had sex for 200 years.
    Miles Monroe: 204, if you count my marriage.

  • If you are going to develop lab grown eggs, figure out a way to make me a cheaper omlette.

  • Try the Sperm Eggs Sausage and Sperm, There's not much Sperm in that.

  • What about gender? If we can create our own sperm and egg with science, what exactly do we need men for again? Women carry the egg, etc. If you don't need men to provide the sperm, then why keep the gender that's more or less causing all the problems?

    We can dream up all sorts of scary ways these kinds of sciences COULD possibly go wrong. I think most are extreme, including my own example. Just food for thought.

  • Men being made obsolete because sperm can be reliably made in a lab, or women being made obsolete because eggs can be made reliably in a lab?

    Read a book some decades ago that postulated that for sperm production you only need a few men per continent and all the rest should either be killed at birth or neutered at birth... published by Harvard.

    true story

Slashdot Top Deals

Overflow on /dev/null, please empty the bit bucket.

Close